The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-10-04

| during the past week; remembered the
time her sisters child was born; called
there soon after; did not see defendant
there.
GEORGE VI. PRICE
was then called. He testified that Mary
Ann Price was his daughter; had not
seen her for six or seven months; did
not remember the occasion of her leav-
ing; did not ask her where she was go
ing or where she had been; she came
and went as suited her; did not know
whether she was dead or alive; did not
care: had made no inquiries about her;
the child disappeared at the same time;
she and her child stayed at his
house for three or four days be-
fore leaving; had visited her
at her house in the Fifteenth Ward five
years ago; she held deed to her prop
erty; supposed defendant gave it to
her; did not collect rent for her in her
absence; she had her own agent; did
not know who he was; supposed the de-
PENDANT was her husband, bu t did not
know; they last visited him five years
ago; did not know where she lived
after that; never inquired; she was able
to take care of herself; he had not con-
tributed to her support during the last
four years; she clerked at the Fifteenth
ward st IRE seven years ago, but had not
| been there since her boy was born.
Court took recess until 2 pm.
IN THE AFTERNOON.
Mr.. Price was again called to the
stand. He testified that Mary Ann was
not at his house two days before he was
subp@naed to appear before the COM
missioner; defendant had been at his
| house several times since she left, but
he had not been there since the child
was returned; had not seen Mary Ann
at meeting since 1885; his wife was at
home last night and this morning; did
not know where she could be found !;
| she did not say where she was going
when she left; defendant had not been
at his house this morning; had not seen
| Mary Ann and defendant together since
January 1st, 1885.
| DEPUTY MARSHAL sPRAGUE
was called, and testified that when he
was serving the papers in the case, he
saw lady in the Fifteenth Ward store;
he went into the house. and when he
returned the lady had disappeared.
This testimony was objected 10 by Mr.
Rawlins, and was stricken out.
This closed the evidence, and Mr..
Rawlins requested the Court 10 instruct
the jury to acquit the defendant. This
was opposed by Mr.. Clark, who con-
Quoted the prosecution.
The court said that the defendant
was charged with unlawful cohabitstion
between the dates named in the indict-
ment. 1t appeared from ihe evidence
that Janet Griggs was his lawful wife,
| and that Mary Ann Price was his po
| lygamous wife, and that her youngest
! child was years old. And while the
evidence raised the suspicion that de-
| iendant had advised Mary Ann TO go
away, this alone could not authorize a
| conviction. There was no evidence that
the defendant and Mary Ann Price
| had associated together during the
past five years, and if the jury
should find the defendant guilty
il would be the duty of the court 10 set
the verdict aside. The jury was in
structed to find verdict of not guilty,
which they did without leaving the box.
The case of
THE UNITED STATES VS.. JAMES LAWSON,
charged with unlawful habitation,
was then taken up, and jury was
called and sworn.
MRS. LAWSON was the first witness
called. She testified that she was mar
ried to defendant over twenty-four
| years ago; at that time he had a wife
living; her. name was Betsy. she
was still living; witness had six
children living, all by the defendant;
did not know whether Betsy had any
children or not; was not acquainted
with her, but knew her BY sight; had
| lived in the Sixteenth Ward since mar
rying defendant; he lived in the same
house With her, but occupied separate
apartments; thought Betsy had lived
next door to her for ten years; there
were two young men living with her,
their names were James and William;
did not know their last names; never
exchanged visits or spoke TO any of
them; there was no fence between the
two houses; had no acquaintance out
side of their own family; had
been an invalid for ten years;
hal no relations in this city outside Of
her immediate family; defendant never
referred to the family living next door;
bad never inquired of him as to who
they were; supposed that both places
belonged to defendant; had never seen
him collect rent from her neighbor !;
knew he had wife when she married
him, but did not know her name: was
living with family named Void, in
the Sixteenth Ward, when she first met
him; never said before the Grand Jury
that Betsy was defendants wife; had
never heard defendant say any
thing about his first wife; had
heard him say that he had been d.
yorced from a woman, buL did no!
] understand MIN to refer to Betsy; did
not often go 10 church. never sae Bet
sy there; never exchanged a word with
her.
MISS CBIsSIE LAWSON
was then called. She testified that she
was Is years old; her fathers name was
James Lawson; lived in the Sixteenth
, Ward; had five sisters and one brother
Z Hattie was the name OF her oldest
sister; had attended the ward school
J and the University; never knew two
bows named James and William
g Lawson while at school; did
9 not know whether the house
! next door to her house was occupied OF
: not; had seen two boys around there
j had heard themicalled James and Viii